/prog/ - Adobe is lazy

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 8:05

Proof that Adobe programmers are lazy as fuck.

http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 22:38

It's true, Vorbis was pretty cool. Why can't Theora be cool too? ;_;

>>80
The GIF extortions was a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. It's peanuts to what H.264 could turn into some years from now, though.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:47

Why can't Theora be cool too? ;_;
See >>79

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:57

[highlight]The contents of my other address register are the contents of the decrement register.[/highlight]

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:12

http://f.ig.gl/
no flash required. and this was reported as a bug back when firefox was still called phoenix.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:27

>>84
and apparently chrome is the only major browser that doesn't completely grind to a halt after a few seconds on that page.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:15

>>85
the only major browser that doesn't completely grind to a halt after a few seconds on that page
Neither does lynx.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:19

>>86
I think >>85 was only counting browsers with at least 0.25% market share.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 5:31

>>86,87
Neither did IE6, nor any other browser when scripting is disabled.

You put a Touring-complete language in a browser, you should expect shit like that to happen.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 6:16

>>88
>>86-87

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:04

>>88
You put a Touring-complete language in a browser, you should expect shit like that to happen.
No, you put a Touring-complete language in a browser, I expect since it's interpreted and all, it'll be interruptible and not block. Of course due to retro-compatibility (and the fact that Web developers wouldn't get it right in any case), everything has to block because execution is expected to be fully synchronous.

Chrome gets it right by accident, the tab process will hang until you terminate it or close all the tabs that belong to it. It might give you the wrong illusion because it keeps a backing store of the last shown page, but it still hangs.

Did you know that until recently there was a way to do a blocking network request via JavaScript? It'd block the entire browser until completion. If the network died without explicit error, the browser would be locked up forever.

Also: have you noticed pages that freeze the browser for one second or so when you click a link? These are pinging back home to see which link you followed. To give the ping time to travel across the network (it'd be cancelled upon leaving the page), they spinlock in JS for one second. They might have started to do this in response of the "bug" in the previous paragraph being "fixed". Remember this the next time one of these faggots cry about adblocking. This kind of people needs to die.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:28

>>88
Touring?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:00

>>91
back to /g/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:23

>>88
the funny thing is, if you take out the bit that sticks a random number on the end of the url, all the major browsers handle it just fine because they have code to detect stuff like that and halt it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 10:07

>>93
Oh, that's awesome. Why fix the problem when you can blacklist a special case?

Good to know a site with an iframe pointing to itself won't hang the browser, that's a huge accomplishment if I've ever seen one.

Next thing you know, the browser won't crash when you feed it a hundred 4000x4000 images. (Proposed fix: further reduce the arbitrary image resolution limit)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 11:18

>>85
I don't know what you were doing, but it sure as hell killed Chrome for me. Even after closing the tab it still consumed 100% CPU and kept allocating memory. I had to force-kill it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 14:06

>>91
*grabs duck*

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 14:25

>>95
just kill the process for that tab, then reload any other tabs that show that "oops" message.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:23

>>94
kinda like one proposed solution to plugins crashing browsers... "let's just blacklist plugins that crash and refuse to run them!"

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:58

>>90
Also: have you noticed pages that freeze the browser for one second or so when you click a link? These are pinging back home to see which link you followed. To give the ping time to travel across the network (it'd be cancelled upon leaving the page), they spinlock in JS for one second.
Could you elaborate on this?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 21:09

>>97
Good luck identifying which process corresponds to the tab when the entire browser is deadlocked.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:26

>>99
Sorry, I can't find the original post (Goddamn, Internet search is so shitty and it's getting shittier by the day). But you can read http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7823 if you feel like it, comment #46 and some others are examples of this obnoxious behavior (fix: block third party advertisement/tracking networks, or in general just do aggressive adblocking as you should already)

>>100
The entire browser does not deadlock (talking about Chrome here, right?), but even if it did, it's trivial to find which process is at fault: it'll be consuming 100% CPU (of one core).

I've only seen it deadlock with plugins, that's to be expected because the communication mechanism in plugins isn't designed to be block-resistant (actually it's only designed to suck).

Even if this happens, killing the plugin process will solve the deadlock. The plugin process can be a bit more difficult to find if it's not spinlocking, but it can be done since unlike the renderer processes it is not sandboxed and therefore has different privileges.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:55

>>101
Yes, the entire browser locked up, it took roughly a minute to load the task manager and kill it, and doing so closed the entire browser.

But now, when I try again, I can't repeat it. Fucking weird.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:31

>>101
Makes it all the more annoying to have 16 cores. One core at 100% corresponds to 6% CPU usage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:36

>>103
Makes it all the more annoying to have 16 cocks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 1:00

>>103
16-cores? what system are you using?

Name: oiwaejroijwroijwoir 2010-03-22 1:54

oijoijoi

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 3:11

>>105
Two X7560s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 6:54

I'm sorry to interrupt but process in deadlock does not consume any cpu time. It has requested a lock on mutex and OS has stopped it until the mutex is unlocked.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 14:46

>>108
I lol'd

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:11

I didn't

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:22

I lol'd in my pants.

Name: scruffy 2010-03-22 17:36

>>110
2nd

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:01

>>108
H[sup]a_{h^{a_{h^{a_{h^{a_{h^a_[/sup]}}}}}}}

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:08

>>113
_{anal failure}

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 21:44

>>114
^{anal bum cover}

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 1:33

oOh abode

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:01

Please, come into my humble adobe.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:34

PLEASE TO BE COMING IN MY RECTUM

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 13:13

PLEASE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 3:21

Newer Posts

Adobe is lazy

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 8:05

81 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 22:38

82 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:47

83 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:57

84 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:12

85 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:27

86 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:15

87 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:19

88 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 5:31

89 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 6:16

90 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:04

91 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:28

92 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:00

93 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:23

94 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 10:07

95 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 11:18

96 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 14:06

97 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 14:25

98 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:23

99 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:58

100 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 21:09

101 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:26

102 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:55

103 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:31

104 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:36

105 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 1:00

106 Name: oiwaejroijwroijwoir 2010-03-22 1:54

107 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 3:11

108 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 6:54

109 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 14:46

110 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:11

111 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:22

112 Name: scruffy 2010-03-22 17:36

113 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:01

114 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:08

115 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 21:44

116 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 1:33

117 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:01

118 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:34

119 Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 13:13

120 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 3:21